Primary Navigation

Re: [hreg] Solar for Texas !

Because in the case of Houston, we don t have the wind option (unless you live in Galveston, which is of course not Houston) since we don t get enough wind.

Message 1 of 19
, Mar 19 8:26 AM

0 Attachment

Because in the case of Houston, we don't have the wind option (unless you live in Galveston, which is of course not Houston) since we don't get enough wind. What we do have is enough roof tops and plenty of sun! A huge part of our energy goes into water heating and this problem can easily be taken care of with a solar water heater. You can argue that you can take care of this with a tankless water heater ( and it is an option) but, why not use the sun when it works just fine! Buy the way, the wind is comming..... To me the key is using all types of alternative energy so that there is a balance andvariety of technology involved. This would help with the monopolization of energy. My two cents.

Why is it exactly that we would want to promote solar PV above all the other types of renewable energy? Solar PV already has significantly more incentives than other renewable energy options and still they often out compete it. To me the key to renewable energy is the application of the right technology at the right place not trying to fit the same technology into use everywhere. Why right policy that tries to force Solar PV if for a particular area wind is a better option?

Hello all – I recently joined HREG. In 2007, I wrote my master’s thesis in Law at UH on Solar Energy Policy, comparing the feed-in tariffs of Germany/Spain and elsewhere in Europe to Renewable Portfolio Standards “RPS” (like Texas has) and other policies in the US to see which are most effective in proli ferating solar. The “naked” RPS will not work for solar. This is why in Texas, wind is 99.9% of the renewable energy supply and solar is Zero – despite having an excellent solar resource, capital resource and other industrial resources. There are very tangible and measured reasons why this is so. In my research, I found economic models which have been done in Europe that clearly explain the effect. States that want solar and have an RPS must add additional policies in
order to deploy solar. Many cringe at the idea of a feed-in tariff, feeling it could only work in Europe. In the US, however, states including Louisiana and Florida are in the process of implementing feed-in tariffs and others have hybrid RPS/feed-in policies. California’s policy obviously clearly mandates solar.

Texas could lead the country in solar, just as we do in wind. It takes some intelligent policy design and will to achieve, however.

About the only statewide incentive offered to PV customers up to now is an exemption from property tax rate increases based on the cost of a renewable energy system. That's been on the books for years.

Another piece of legislation under consideration will exempt installation costs from state sales tax.

What about property appraisals? If the debt stays with the property, then the banks will have to acknowledge that solar REALLY DOES increase the property value. If the homeowner sells, it could be considered a down side to potential buyers.

(I would not take it that way, but has the public changed their thoughts on solar that much?)

You would make only one payment per year. That payment would be included with your property tax payment. That payment, here in Tarrant County at least, can be spread into two payments if you like.

The total cost will be amoritized (without interest) over twenty years and remains a "lien" against the property regardless of who owns the property. That same property owner would, presumably, "own" the electric service and any costs and benefits like net metering that apply to the PV systems output and the homes electric usage.

It's about the most cost effective way I can think of to finance a PV system.

Phillip: Your comment is curious. It is interesting that you assumed I referred to Photovoltaics, (PV) although nowhere in my note do I mention PV. In fact

Message 2 of 19
, Mar 19 8:44 AM

0 Attachment

Phillip:

Your comment is curious. It is interesting that you assumed I referred to
Photovoltaics, (PV) although nowhere in my note do I mention PV. In fact
solar has many different technologies; some more progressed in their development
than others. These would include concentrated solar thermal, known as
CSP, thin film, PV, nano-paint, quantum dots, solar hot water, solar optics, combined
CSP/PV just to name a few. Your comment suggests that perhaps in
Texas you think wind is
a better technology choice. I wonder why that might be. My comment
does not make mention of forcing a technology on anyone, but instead of offering
multiple solutions so that consumers can have a greater range to choose
from. Solar and wind do not compete with each other. In fact,
the technologies are very complementary and developers in some parts of the country
are doing combined installations of wind with solar. Wind often performs
optimally at night, solar in the day, so combining the two is a win for
everyone.

You refer to solar having more
incentives than wind. In Texas ,
I wonder what those incentives might be.

Why is it exactly that we would want to promote solar
PV above all the other types of renewable energy? Solar PV already has
significantly more incentives than other renewable energy options and still
they often out compete it. To me the key to renewable energy is the
application of the right technology at the right place not trying to fit the
same technology into use everywhere. Why right policy that tries to force
Solar PV if for a particular area wind is a better option?

Hello all – I recently joined
HREG. In 2007, I wrote my master’s thesis in Law at UH on Solar
Energy Policy, comparing the feed-in tariffs of Germany/Spain and elsewhere in
Europe to Renewable Portfolio Standards “RPS” (like Texas
has) and other policies in the US to see which are most effective in proli
ferating solar. The “naked” RPS will not work for
solar. This is why in Texas ,
wind is 99.9% of the renewable energy supply and solar is Zero – despite
having an excellent solar resource, capital resource and other industrial
resources. There are very tangible and measured reasons why this is
so. In my research, I found economic models which have been done in
Europe that clearly explain the effect. States that
want solar and have an RPS must add additional policies in order to deploy solar.
Many cringe at the idea of a feed-in tariff, feeling it could only work in
Europe . In the US ,
however, states including Louisiana and
Florida are in the
process of implementing feed-in tariffs and others have hybrid RPS/feed-in
policies. California ’s
policy obviously clearly mandates solar.

Texas could lead the
country in solar, just as we do in wind. It takes some intelligent policy
design and will to achieve, however.

About the only statewide incentive offered to PV customers
up to now is an exemption from property tax rate increases based on the cost of
a renewable energy system. That's been on the books for years.

Another piece of legislation under consideration will exempt
installation costs from state sales tax.

What about property
appraisals? If the debt stays with the property, then the banks will have
to acknowledge that solar REALLY DOES increase the property value. If the
homeowner sells, it could be considered a down side to potential buyers.

(I would not take it that way, but has the public changed their thoughts on
solar that much?)

You would make only one payment per
year. That payment would be included with your property tax payment.
That payment, here in Tarrant
County at least, can
be spread into two payments if you like.

The total cost will
be amoritized (without interest) over twenty years and remains a
"lien" against the property regardless of who owns the property. That
same property owner would, presumably, "own" the electric service and
any costs and benefits like net metering that apply to the PV systems output
and the homes electric usage.

It's about the most cost effective
way I can think of to finance a PV system.

Sorry for the misunderstanding in your note, I did think that you were referring to only Photovoltaics. Admittedly I am not that familiar with the exact

Message 3 of 19
, Mar 19 8:33 PM

0 Attachment

Sorry for the misunderstanding in your note, I did think that you were referring to only Photovoltaics. Admittedly I am not that familiar with the exact policies in Europe but from what I have seen they are most heavily using PV and up until this year that is pretty much the only one technology that our goverment was pushing. I happen to think that Solar Water Heating and CSP are in many cases better options than PV but are often over looked. The incentives for Solar PV in Texas are the same as in the rest of the country, 30% tax credit (recently raised to a much higher limit). The recent bailout package did bring other technologies alot more in line but for a long time only Solar PV recieved any incentives from the federal goverment. I think we are very fortunate in Texas that we have good resources in both wind and solar. But if you are looking at large scale production in most of Texas wind is more economical and Solar Hot Water is almost always more economical than PV. Sorry I misuderstood what you were saying there I have just read several articles lately saying how solar PV was the greatest technology ever and was going to solve all our problems (with Germany as the example cited) and I would hate to see us get tied to one technology when there are many other good options and depending on the local environment PV, wind, geothermal, micro-hydro or a combination may be the best option depending on the circumstances.

I also am
not that familiar with how the feed in tariff works. Could you help me out with a couple questions? In that system do you get paid for all the electricity you produce or just what is over your own consumption? Does this policy support things like solar hot water in which no electricity is generated?

Your comment is curious. It is interesting that you assumed I referred to Photovoltaics, (PV) although nowhere in my note do I mention PV. In fact solar has many different technologies; some more progressed in their development than others. These would include concentrated solar thermal, known as CSP, thin film, PV, nano-paint, quantum dots, solar hot water, solar optics, combined CSP/PV just to nam
e a few. Your comment suggests that perhaps in Texas you think wind is a better technology choice. I wonder why that might be. My comment does not make mention of forcing a technology on anyone, but instead of offering multiple solutions so that consumers can have a greater range to choose from. Solar and wind do not compete with each other. In fact, the technologies are very complementary and developers in some parts of the country are doing combined installations of wind with solar. Wind often performs optimally at night, solar in the day, so combining the two is a win for everyone.

You refer to solar having more incentives than wind. In Texas, I wonder what those incentives might be.

Why is it exactly that we would want to promote solar PV above all the other types of renewable energy? Solar PV already has significantly more incentives than other renewable energy options and still they often out compete it. To me the key to renewable energy is the application of the right technology at the right place not trying to fit the same technology into use everywhere. Why right policy that tries to force Solar PV if for a particular area wind is a better option?

Hello all – I recently joined HREG. In 2007, I wrote my master’s thesis in Law at UH on Solar Energy Policy, comparing the feed-in tariffs of Germany/Spain and elsewhere in Europe to Renewable Portfolio Standards “RPS” (like Texas has) and other policies in the US to see which are most effective in proli ferating solar. The “naked” RPS will not work for solar. This is why in Texas, wind is 99.9% of the renewable energy supply and solar is Zero – despite having an excellent solar resource, capital resource and other industrial resources. There are very tangible and measured reasons why this is so. In my research, I found economic models which have been done in Europe that clearly explain the effect. States that want solar and have an RPS must add additional policies in order to deploy solar. Many cringe at the idea of a feed-in tariff, feeling it could only work in Europe. In the US, however, states including Louisiana and Florida are in the process of implementing feed-in ta
riffs and others have hybrid RPS/feed-in policies. California’s policy obviously clearly mandates solar.

Texas could lead the country in solar, just as we do in wind. It takes some intelligent policy design and will to achieve, however.

About the only statewide incentive offered to PV customers up to now is an exemption from property tax rate increases based on the cost of a renewable energy system. That's been on the books for years.

Another piece of legislation under consideration will exempt installation costs from state sales tax.

What about property appraisals? If the debt stays with the property, then the banks will have to acknowledge that solar REALLY DOES increase the property value. If the homeowner sells, it could be considered a down side to potential buyers.

(I would not take it that way, but has the public changed their thoughts on solar that much?)

You would make only one payment per year. That payment would be included with your property tax payment. That payment, here in Tarrant County at least, can be spread into two p
ayments if you like.

The total cost will be amoritized (without interest) over twenty years and remains a "lien" against the property regardless of who owns the property. That same property owner would, presumably, "own" the electric service and any costs and benefits like net metering that apply to the PV systems output and the homes electric usage.

It's about the most cost effective way I can think of to finance a PV system.

Phillip: Not a problem. Most people assume PV when someone mentions solar and are unfamiliar with the panoply of other solar technologies in existence and

Message 4 of 19
, Mar 20 8:49 AM

0 Attachment

Phillip:

Not a problem. Most people assume
PV when someone mentions solar and are unfamiliar with the panoply of other
solar technologies in existence and under development. Europe
is leading the way not only in PV, but in the variety as well – including
thin film and CSP. To make another clarification about my original
comment, I was speaking about Texas
policy, not Federal. The tax incentives you mention are Federal tax
incentives. My comment was about the
Texas state Renewable Portfolio Standard or
PRS.

The benefit of Feed-in tariff policy is
that it supports ALL renewables eqally. Feed-in incorporate a pricing
structure that allows each to be compensated for the electricity fed into the
grid. These include biomas, wind, solar (all forms,) geothermal and others.

I recently put out bids for minor
carpentry on my home. One of the bidders, from the Woodlands was a
builder from Belgium .
He and I enjoyed a lively discussion of this topic and he explained that in
Europe , builders are no longer installing mechanical/electric
heating/AC systems in homes. Instead, new homes are built with a system
that includes an external air envelope, geothermal pumps, solar hot water and
solar roof tops. The temperature is maintained year round at a range of
72-75 degrees F with no AC/heating.

Sorry for the misunderstanding in your note, I did
think that you were referring to only Photovoltaics. Admittedly I am not
that familiar with the exact policies in Europe
but from what I have seen they are most heavily using PV and up until this year
that is pretty much the only one technology that our goverment was
pushing. I happen to think that Solar Water Heating and CSP are in many
cases better options than PV but are often over looked. The incentives
for Solar PV in Texas
are the same as in the rest of the country, 30% tax credit (recently raised to
a much higher limit). The recent bailout package did bring other
technologies alot more in line but for a long time only Solar PV recieved any
incentives from the federal goverment. I think we are very fortunate in
Texas that we have good
resources in both wind and solar. But if you are looking at large scale
production in most of Texas wind is more economical and Solar Hot
Water is almost always more economical than PV. Sorry I misuderstood what
you were saying there I have just read several articles lately saying how solar
PV was the greatest technology ever and was going to solve all our problems
(with Germany as the example cited) and I would hate to see us get tied to one
technology when there are many other good options and depending on the local
environment PV, wind, geothermal, micro-hydro or a combination may be the best
option depending on the circumstances.

I also am not that familiar with how the feed in tariff works. Could you
help me out with a couple questions? In that system do you get paid for
all the electricity you produce or just what is over your own consumption? Does
this policy support things like solar hot water in which no electricity is
generated?

Your comment is curious. It is interesting that you assumed I referred to
Photovoltaics, (PV) although nowhere in my note do I mention PV. In fact
solar has many different technologies; some more progressed in their
development than others. These would include concentrated solar thermal,
known as CSP, thin film, PV, nano-paint, quantum dots, solar hot water, solar
optics, combined CSP/PV just to nam e a few. Your comment suggests that
perhaps in Texas
you think wind is a better technology choice. I wonder why that might
be. My comment does not make mention of forcing a technology on anyone,
but instead of offering multiple solutions so that consumers can have a greater
range to choose from. Solar and wind do not compete with each
other. In fact, the technologies are very complementary and developers in
some parts of the country are doing combined installations of wind with
solar. Wind often performs optimally at night, solar in the day, so
combining the two is a win for everyone.

You refer to solar having more
incentives than wind. In Texas ,
I wonder what those incentives might be.

Why is it exactly that we would want to promote solar PV above all the
other types of renewable energy? Solar PV already has significantly more
incentives than other renewable energy options and still they often out compete
it. To me the key to renewable energy is the application of the right
technology at the right place not trying to fit the same technology into use
everywhere. Why right policy that tries to force Solar PV if for a
particular area wind is a better option?

Hello all – I recently joined
HREG. In 2007, I wrote my master’s thesis in Law at UH on Solar
Energy Policy, comparing the feed-in tariffs of Germany/Spain and elsewhere in
Europe to Renewable Portfolio Standards “RPS” (like Texas
has) and other policies in the US to see which are most effective in proli
ferating solar. The “naked” RPS will not work for
solar. This is why in Texas ,
wind is 99.9% of the renewable energy supply and solar is Zero – despite
having an excellent solar resource, capital resource and other industrial
resources. There are very tangible and measured reasons why this is
so. In my research, I found economic models which have been done in
Europe that clearly explain the effect. States that
want solar and have an RPS must add additional policies in order to deploy
solar. Many cringe at the idea of a feed-in tariff, feeling it could only
work in Europe . In the
US , however, states including Louisiana
and Florida
are in the process of implementing feed-in ta riffs and others have hybrid
RPS/feed-in policies. California ’s
policy obviously clearly mandates solar.

Texas could lead the
country in solar, just as we do in wind. It takes some intelligent policy
design and will to achieve, however.

About the only statewide incentive offered to PV customers
up to now is an exemption from property tax rate increases based on the cost of
a renewable energy system. That's been on the books for years.

Another piece of legislation under consideration will exempt
installation costs from state sales tax.

What about property
appraisals? If the debt stays with the property, then the banks will have
to acknowledge that solar REALLY DOES increase the property value. If the
homeowner sells, it could be considered a down side to potential buyers.

(I would not take it that way, but has the public changed their thoughts on
solar that much?)

You would make only one payment per
year. That payment would be included with your property tax payment.
That payment, here in Tarrant
County at least, can
be spread into two p ayments if you like.

The total cost will
be amoritized (without interest) over twenty years and remains a
"lien" against the property regardless of who owns the property. That
same property owner would, presumably, "own" the electric service and
any costs and benefits like net metering that apply to the PV systems output
and the homes electric usage.

It's about the most cost effective
way I can think of to finance a PV system.

Thanks. A couple more questions it is nice to be able to ask someone who knows the policy well. In general technologies like solar hot water and geothermal

Message 5 of 19
, Mar 20 12:11 PM

0 Attachment

Thanks. A couple more questions it is nice to be able to ask someone who knows the policy well. In general technologies like solar hot water and geothermal don't create electiricity they simply reduce the amount of electricity or natural gas that a home owner needs, is there a mechanism in the Feed in Tarriff policy to incentivize these type of technologies? With reguard to Solar PV, wind or other electricity generating technologies does the policy pay (or reward) the homeowner for all the electricity the system produces or just what it produces above what the homeowner consumes?

Not a problem. Most people assume PV when someone mentions solar and are unfamiliar with the panoply of other solar technologies in existence and under development. Europe is leading the way not only in PV, but in the variety as well – including thin film and CSP. To make another clarification about my original comment, I was speaking about Texas policy, not Federal. The tax incentives you mention are Federal tax incentives. My comment was about the Texas state Renewable Portfolio Standard or PRS.

The benefit of Feed-in tariff policy is that it supports ALL renewables eqally. Feed-in incorporate a pricing structure that allows each to be compensated for the electricity fed into the grid. These include biomas, wind, solar (all forms,) geothermal and others.

I recently put out bids for minor carpentry on my home. One of the bidders, from the Woodlands was a builder from Belgium.&n
bsp; He and I enjoyed a lively discussion of this topic and he explained that in Europe, builders are no longer installing mechanical/electric heating/AC systems in homes. Instead, new homes are built with a system that includes an external air envelope, geothermal pumps, solar hot water and solar roof tops. The temperature is maintained year round at a range of 72-75 degrees F with no AC/heating.

Sorry for the misunderstanding in your note, I did think that you were referring to only Photovoltaics. Admittedly I am not that familiar with the exact policies in Europe but from what I have seen they are most heavily using PV and up until this year that is pretty much the only one technology that our goverment was pushing. I happen to think that Solar Water Heating and CSP are in many cases better options than PV but are often over looked. The incentives for Solar PV in Texas are the same as in the rest of the country, 30% tax credit (recently raised to a much higher limit). The recent bailout package did bring other technologies alot more in line but for a long time only Solar PV recieved any incentives from the federal goverment. I think we are very fortunate in Texas that we have good resources in both wind and solar. But if you are looking at large scale production in most of Texas wind is more economical and Solar Hot Water is almost always more economical than PV. Sorry I misuderstood what you were saying there I have just read several articles lately saying how solar PV was the greatest technology ever and w
as going to solve all our problems (with Germany as the example cited) and I would hate to see us get tied to one technology when there are many other good options and depending on the local environment PV, wind, geothermal, micro-hydro or a combination may be the best option depending on the circumstances.

I also am not that familiar with how the feed in tariff works. Could you help me out with a couple questions? In that system do you get paid for all the electricity you produce or just what is over your own consumption? Does this policy support things like solar hot water in which no electricity is generated?

Your comment is curious. It is interesting that you assumed I referred to Photovoltaics, (PV) although nowhere in my note do I mention PV. In fact solar has many different techno
logies; some more progressed in their development than others. These would include concentrated solar thermal, known as CSP, thin film, PV, nano-paint, quantum dots, solar hot water, solar optics, combined CSP/PV just to nam e a few. Your comment suggests that perhaps in Texas you think wind is a better technology choice. I wonder why that might be. My comment does not make mention of forcing a technology on anyone, but instead of offering multiple solutions so that consumers can have a greater range to choose from. Solar and wind do not compete with each other. In fact, the technologies are very complementary and developers in some parts of the country are doing combined installations of wind with solar. Wind often performs optimally at night, solar in the day, so combining the two is a win for everyone.

You refer to solar having more incentives than wind. In Texas, I wonder what those incentives might be.

Why is it exactly that we would want to promote solar PV above all the other types of renewable energy? Solar PV already has significantly more incentives than other renewable energy o
ptions and still they often out compete it. To me the key to renewable energy is the application of the right technology at the right place not trying to fit the same technology into use everywhere. Why right policy that tries to force Solar PV if for a particular area wind is a better option?

Hello all – I recently joined HREG. In 2007, I wrote my master’s thesis in Law at UH on Solar Energy Policy, comparing the feed-in tariffs of Germany/Spain and elsewhere in Europe to Renewable Portfolio Standards “RPS” (like Texas has) and other policies in the US to see which are most effective in proli ferating solar. The “naked” RPS will not work for solar. This is why in Texas, wind is 99.9% of the renewable energy supply and solar is Zero – despite having an excellent solar resource, capital resource and other industrial resources. There are very tangible and measured reasons why this is so. In20my research, I found economic models which have been done in Europe that clearly explain the effect. States that want solar and have an RPS must add additional policies in order to deploy solar. Many cringe at the idea of a feed-in tariff, feeling it could only work in Europe. In the US, however, states including Louisiana and Florida are in the process of implementing feed-in ta riffs and others have hybrid RPS/feed-in policies. California’s policy obviously clearly mandates solar.

Texas could lead the country in solar, just as we do in wind. It takes some intelligent policy design and will to achieve, however.

About the only statewide incentive offered to PV customers up to now is an exemption from property tax rate increases based on the cost of a renewable energy system. That's been on the books for years.

Another piece of legislation under consideration will exempt installation costs from state sales tax.

What about property appraisals? If the debt stays with the property, then the banks will have to acknowledge that solar REALLY DOES increase=2
0the property value. If the homeowner sells, it could be considered a down side to potential buyers.

(I would not take it that way, but has the public changed their thoughts on solar that much?)

You would make only one payment per year. That payment would be included with your property tax payment. That payment, here in Tarrant County at least, can be spread into two p ayments if you like.

The total cost will be amoritized (without interest) over twenty years and remains a "lien" against the property regardless of who owns the property. That same property owner would, presumably, "own" the electric service and any costs and benefits like net metering that apply to the PV systems output and the homes electric usage.

It's about the most cost effective way I can think of to finance a PV system.